Samsung has enraged the US judge overseeing its patent battle with Apple by leaking to reporters evidence she had previously banned from court.
The South Korean electronics monster is hoping to persuade a jury that it did not rip off Apple's designs for its own smartphones. It kicked off the first day of arguments in the trial …

Evidence

Re: Evidence

The judge hasn't said it's not evidence, but that they're not allowed to use the evidence. In this case (according to the article) that's because they submitted the evidence too late in the discovery process. Which would mean that they didn't give Apple enough notice that they were going to use it, so Apple would have time to prepare counter-arguments.

Re: Evidence

This is a CIVIL case. So while Samsung is still the Defendant, Apple in this case is the PLAINTIFF. And in a civil case, it's not unheard-of for the Defendant to COUNTERSUE the Plaintiff if they feel the plaintiff is in the wrong. Therefore, in a civil case, the standards of evidence are more even than in a criminal hearing. BOTH sides can present evidence and BOTH sides need time to examine the other's evidence and prepare arguments against it.

Re: Evidence

not so.

evidence has to meet certain legal criteria, and once denied, is not suitable for further court discussions. Samsung not pulling out the folder until after evidentiary hearings are concluded means they goofed big.

second goof is to deny orders of the court, and on that, a judge is absolutely top dog in the universe. if something is denied as evidence, you can't turn around and wave it in front of the cameras saying the judge was an idiot. this is contempt of court. remedies can include jailing responsible parties until the trial ends or until the judge's term ends (depends on the legal severity of the case), dismissal, or a bench ruling for the other side.

in other words, Samsung's media genius could get them out of the smartphone business in the US. and it could be used as a factor in other international trade commission cases.

Re: Evidence

I think that the obvious bias that the judge has shown towards Apple needs to be investigated. I think the question has to be looked into whether the Judge accepted money from Apple or has ties to Apple. If the investigation shows that Koh was impartial, it would go a long way to convincing me that she was unbiased in her work. If she is innocent, she has nothing to fear.

Re: Evidence

The judge could easily have granted Apple an extension to address "new discovery." It's SOP in US courts and if you followed the SCO/IBM battle on Groklaw it took years of extensions and and ultimately the extinction of SCO to settle that more or less. The judge's motives for not doing so are very unclear, but one is left wondering how many Apple shares she owns. Of course she may just be a stickler for the rules and don't like changing time lines for trials, especially if she has a vacation scheduled. She has however put on a very biased-appearing show so far.

Re: Evidence

Appears she used to work for the company that handled IP issues for Apple in the past. There's been a few links to her previous work before, and it does seem odd that she's got prior experience with the company here. To be seen as unbiased, it's odd she didn't excuse herself from the start, as time and time again she appears to be favouring Apple.

Re: Evidence

Ohhhh isn't this the good old US and A, where the best (???) of the corporate legal teams, say for the likes of Monsanto, the meat industry, the drug / pharmacuitical industries, etc., etc., etc.. - wheedle and knnive and then get themselves appointed as judges and government administrators, that oddly enough make determinations in favour of the alledged "wronged parties" - which they also just happened to have worked for a few years ago?

The more I hear about Apple and their scumbag bullshit - the more I want to grab their legal teams, drag them across their own desks, and then shove their fucking Iphones up their own arses.....

Re: Evidence

I'm wondering if the judge is not pissed because she knew it was evidence because Apple used it in their properly submitted evidence. She had to reject it as Samsung introduced evidence because they submitted it too late and they shouldn't have kept bugging her to admit it when Apple already had it.

Then again( and not being a lawyer or even close) Samsung would have to wait until Apple brought it up in court before they could use it and if they didn't then so too Samsung could not use it.

One would have thought that the first thing Samsung would have done was to find all their phones and other manufacturers phones which used the "bar type" format having a large screen.

Re: Evidence

I'm sorry, but is the definition of "bias" in your comment that you feel the judge is ruling too often in Apple's favor for your taste?

Following Rules of Evidence is hardly sufficient reason to question a judge's impartiality, especially to the extent of investigating her for taking bribes.

Otherwise a judge's partiality could be questioned almost every time he or she made a ruling for one side or the other. Accusing a judge of impartiality on that basis would be laughable.

But so is stating "obvious bias" and questioning Judge Koh's partiality based on....what? You don't seem to have given any reason for your statement, or provided any proof of "bias", obvious or otherwise.

Your comment, to me, is instead a scary example of why the innocent often have a LOT to fear...from people like you, who believe they should be "investigated" on the basis of nothing more than, perhaps, disagreement with their ruling, or even with the law itself.

Scary because you wrote as if one of the most important concepts underlying U.S., U.K. and many other countries' jurisprudence doesn't even exist. Or did you simply forget even a judge is: "Innocent until proven guilty"?

Re: Have the courage to speak up under your own name!!

Re: Evidence

Given the gamesmanship and skullduggery many companies and individuals play when they have deep enough pockets, why ban later entry of evidence? When judges do that, they sometimes commit innocent people to excess burden or costly end-run battles and appeals and even sentencing or actual incarceration. And, sometimes the guilty go free. As long as the parties are not spinnng or conjuring then factual event info should be allowed and then debunked or vindicated.

Re: Have the courage to speak up under your own name!!

LOL - OK, you have a point there.

The "speak up under your own name" part was meant as more cartoonish than anything. But you're right, it came across angry. My apologies. I withdraw the comment as overly snitty and pompous. Let me try again, as more of an adult:

I do think it's going too far to suggest Judge Koh be investigated for, or even suspected of, taking money from Apple. There is nothing I can see, no facts or incidents to support, the suspicion of bribery.

I don't see how excluding Samsung's evidence shows anything except their attorneys made a bad mistake. I also haven't read anything explaining WHY they screwed up getting the Sony evidence in on time.

Unless someone can show Judge Koh admitted evidence from Apple that was also submitted late, her decision looks like strict adherence to rules of evidence, not bias. (Of course, the expectation is she will be equally strict about all evidence, and all rulings.)

As far as "innocent until proven guilty" - that's a comment I'd make about thousands of on-line discussions. It does scare me how many people seem to believe it should be the other way around. (Yes, even corporations...though I admit it's hard not to think of them as guilty of something most of the time.)

Re: Have the courage to speak up under your own name!!

LOL - OK, you have a point there. The "Have the courage..." was intended as more cartoonish, but the whole thing came across as a rant. I apologize and withdraw the comment as overlly snitty and pompous. May I try again?

I really do think (sorry) it's ridiculous to suggest, Judge Koh should be investigated for, or suspected of, taking money from Apple. There are no facts, no evidence to support an accusation of bribery.

Yes, it does frighten me how many online discussions seem to sneer at the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." It's disturbing how prevalent assumption of guilt is - demands the "obviously" guilty be punished immediately, no need for a trial - you can SEE they're guilty! Um, yeah, I think that's a little scary.

So I also can't agree there's "obvious" bias based solely on commenters saying the judge "seems" biased. It would be nice if they included examples, because I haven't seen any evident bias in this case yet.

What I do see is Samsung made some bad mistakes. Not submitting the Sony evidence on time is just one. Ruling that evidence inadmissible was not "bias", but adherence to rules of evidence (unless you can show Apple also submitted evidence late that was admitted). Going public can only come back to bite Samsung; e.g., if they lose and file an appeal, they've tainted any future jury-selection nicely.

Though I will admit, it's hard not to assume all corporations "bend" the law when convenient, including Apple.

It can't be contempt the slides are NOT evidence in the case, The judge made this clear.

If anything its embarrassing for the judge which may be deserved if she is refusing late evidence in a Multi Billion Dollar trial because she wants to, Sometimes the stakes are higher than the judges whim.

What the jury do is up to them, usually the judge will instruct them what to avoid during the trial.

Fangurl

She's made bizarre, seemingly incompetent judgements all favouring the same plaintiff, maybe it's the way the US legal system works but most judgements she'd made would be laughed away in the EU for starters and likely many other countries.

That's why idiots like you aren't judges. It is evidence. That's why she excluded their evidence. You can't rig things in your favour by submitting something at the last minute. But given how samsung can't hold onto emails then maybe paying fair isn't their top priority so we're fortunate to have a fair and honest judge.

Re: Emails

Re: Emails

Friday. Sammy objected to Koh's apparent bias in jury instructions. Sammy drew the court's attention to the fact that Apple had not saved emails until (I forget when) which was long, long after they sent their first silly letter to Sammy. So the take now is that both parties have failed to preserve email evidence. In fact, given that Apple instigated the action, you could say their destruction is weightier. However Koh has put a different spin on it. now, the jury is instructed that both parties have fouled.

Re: Fangurl

Even inside the US she looks biased and the sole obvious reason for Apple's suit is that the Galxies are nicer designs, not copies. I suspect that she's seriously considering contempt of court charges, but as far as making the slides public goes, she pretty well opened the door by denying them as evidence. Civil cases are somewhat like basketball where a player will deliberately commit a foul in order to change the time flow in a game. She should have allowed the evidence and provided time for Apple to respond. In fact however, Apple already HAS responded publicly and well before this, so again looks like judge bias. Were I lawyering for Samsung I would be looking very closely at Lucy Koh in every legal means checking history, finances, college, relationships, everything that could explain the apparent bias and if possible provide grounds for asking that she recuse herself.

They didn't. The jury was pretty much guaranteed to be instructed to avoid the media coverage of the case, right? If I were Samsung my response would be live by the technicality, die by the technicality.

Contempt ?

Re: Contempt ?

It was contempt because it was used as a way to try to get excluded evidence to the jury.

Samsung COULD have used the exclusion as part of any appeal, but releasing their evidence and case like this is likely to pollute any future retrial so it looks more and more like an act of desperation. Bad move Samsung.

Re: Contempt ?

Both sides have to submit the evidence they're going to use in advance. This is supposed to give each side a fair chance, because they know what evidence is being used, even if they don't know what arguments will be made with it.

Therefore you're not allowed to introduce new evidence in a dramatic courtroom surprise (like they often do on TV). Otherwise you'd hide your best evidence and there'd be no way for the opposition to counteract your argument. Even if they could disprove it easily, if only they had the time to dig out the incriminating emails...

So the kindest interpretation is that Samsung have been a bit slow to put together all the stuff they needed for the case to submit to discovery, maybe Apple handed over some documents at the last minute, or they made an error? In which case tough luck, rules is rules.

In the worst interpretation, Samsung deliberately tried to screw over Apple, by not revealing vital documents they should have done. Then compounded that by releasing them to the press, after several attempts to get teh judge to admit them had failed.

I usually tend towards cock-up rather than conspiracy, until strong suggestions otherwise. But the judge may be less forgiving, particularly as they've seriously pissed her off by doing this.

Re: Contempt ?

Re: @I ain't Spartacus: "rules is rules"

Nope, in US civil cases the judge has a lot of freedom to ignore many rules and it appears to be normal to do so. Koh had the option of allowing the late submission, albeit with a possibility of creating delay if Apple fought hard enough. She chose not to, continuing the pattern of favouring Apple.

Re: @I ain't Spartacus: "rules is rules"

Didn't judge Koh dismiss a whole bunch of Apple's case earlier, until forced to accept it by a higher court? That doesn't sound like favouring Apple completely.

I'm sure a way could have been found to submit late evidence. If the judge isn't allowing it, that's either because she's biased, she's made a mistake, or she thinks Samsung are trying to pull a fast one. I'm not following the case, so I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other. I'm not qualified to anyway...

But

They're arguing that the release of this evidence to the press is an attempt to sway the jury.

But I thought that while serving jury duty you weren't allowed to read papers / external news sources regarding the case? I may be wrong here though, my experience of this is limited to Law and Order.

Also on that note, i really am surprised that Samsung haven't requested a new judge to replace Koh, denying evidence? Isn't the whole case about evidence? I mean who cares if it's a little late, proof is proof is proof. Can't help think it'd be different if it were apple trying to throw in evidence last minute.

@wowfood

"Proof is proof is proof"

And rules are rules are rules. Samsung's lawyers have no excuse for not knowing them, and given how long this has been going on they've no excuse for not having all their evidence prepped in time. Squealing "it's not fair" is a bit feeble given the moolah they're no-doubt hoovering up from their client.

Re: But

It's not evidence if you don't give the other side enough time to respond to it or possibly even produce counter-evidence - which is likely why Samsung left this one until so late.

Judge Koh is only upholding the basic rules of any sound legal system. It's Samsung who's playing dirty tricks here - and not the first time either (last I heard they had 'inadvertently' deleted some of their e-mails)